Friday, December 30, 2016

I live in Nevada, and what most of America doesn't know is how much of this state's land is controlled by the federal government.

When Obama took office, 81% of Nevada was designated as federal land. By the beginning of 2016, he extended that percentage to 84.9, a nearly 4% increase in land that can't be used for anything other than viewing, although 99.999% of the nation's people have not, nor will ever see it.

Now, in another parting shot, and as a gift to the environmentalists, the President has stolen another 300,000 acres by federalizing an area called the Golden Butte; just outside of Las Vegas. That is the equivalent of an additional 470 square miles added to the ridiculous amount already possessed. To put that into perspective, the sprawling city of Los Angeles is slightly larger at 503 square miles. As a result, there can be no oil/gas drilling or mining (in a state known as the "Silver State") because it was designated as not only federal land but also a national monument.

With the result of this last election cycle, Democrats should be "soul searching" to determine why they have lost so much power both federally and nationwide since Barack Obama took office. One reason could be this constant pitting of environmentalists against the average American. In just 8 years, Obama has "federalized" more land than any other President before him. All in an attempt to shut down drilling.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

It was only a year ago, that Obama claimed that ISIS was contained. In addition, over the years, he has stated that Al Qaeda was, essentially defeated. Listen to this collection of comments from him and Biden over the years.

Unfortunately, he is wrong on both fronts.

First, there this "heat map" from his own National Counter Terrorism Center that shows that the supposedly "contained" ISIS is operating in 3 times as many countries than it was just two years ago:

Then, there's this late November story from the New York Times: "Obama Expands War With Al Qaeda to Include Shabab in Somalia." (see link below)

The simple fact, is that ISIS is not contained and Al Qaeda is not defeated. Apparently, any beliefs to the contrary only exist in Obama's mind.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

On more than one occasion, I have heard the claim that "most of" or a "majority of" Americans wanted Hillary to be president because she won the popular vote. That claim is wrong on many levels.

First of all, Hillary -- like anyone else who has run for the presidency -- knows that you have to win the electoral vote to win the election. She probably would be the President-elect with both the electoral and popular vote if she had campaigned more often in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but she took those typically "blue states" for granted. She ignored them.

Yes, she did win the popular vote, but only because of California. Without the votes in that state, for both her and Trump, "the Donald" would have won by 1.4 million. The simple fact, is that Trump won the popular vote in 30 of the 50 states. Also understand that Hillary did not win most of the votes or even the "majority" of votes. She won 48% of the popular vote which gives her a plurality and not a majority. That's important, because in winning only 48% of the vote, it means that 52% voted against her.

There is something else to consider as well. The 2016 turnout was the lowest in 20 years, with only 55.4% of eligible voters participating. If, in fact, there was a higher turnout, Hillary may have, again, won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. However, she was not a desirable candidate, and too many previous Obama-voters stayed home.

Finally, there's this. Hillary won only 48% of the 55.4% of the voters who turned out. Therefore less than 27% of the country actually voted for her. Not "most of" or a "majority of" Americans wanted her as President.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

With the elections over and with only a month left in office, only one day before Hanukkah and two days before Christmas, he stabs Israel in the back on a day when most Americans aren't paying attention. For the first time in decades, the U.S. did not defend Israel, and allowed the United Nations Security Council, through U.S. abstention, to condemn Israel's settlement activity in the so-called "Palestinian Occupation" areas. In addition, they will allow the "Council" to issue a cease and desist order for any expansion of settlement activities. I believe he's been waiting 8 years to literally screw Israel, but didn't do so because he, and then Hillary, needed the American Jewish vote. After all, he won 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 against John McCain.

Here is a person that sat for years in a church run by Reverend Wright, who the Anti-Defamation League called a "Messenger of Intolerance". Not just because of his anti-Israel rhetoric, but also because of his rhetoric against Jews in general. So, its a little difficult to believe that Obama sat for years in that church, listened to that hate-speech, and, wasn't equally anti-Israel; or perhaps even anti-Semitic. Yet, still Jews voted for him. I guess they believed him in 2008, when he said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." But, that was a lie.

Barack Obama does not want Jerusalem as the capital. If he had, we would have established an embassy there. Then there's this other parting shot following the death of former Israeli leader Shimon Perez. In releasing a transcript of Barack Obama's memorial speech, the White House intentionally struck out the word "Israel" in this screen shot of that text:

Clearly, the intent was to declare that Jerusalem was even a part of Israel.

So good was Barack Obama's deception as a friend of Israel, the New York Times felt compelled to write an article titled "Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama". Written last April, the "Times" said this:
President Obama, in contrast with his predecessors, has completely shielded Israel from such [U.N.] resolutions." In fact in 2011, the Obama Administration protected Israel by vetoing an almost identical U.N. resolution against Israeli settlement activity that U.S. has now abstained on.

The reality is that Obama will leave office with Israel left in an untenable position. Because of this vote, they might find themselves in international court subject to fines and sanctions. Israeli officials could be subject to arrests as criminals in defiance of a U.N. resolution. And, quite possibly, this non-action by Obama might lead to another Israeli/Middle East war.

Lastly, Democrats might ponder this latest Obama action as to why they have totally lost power in the last 8 years under this President.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

First, let me say I'm no fan of ObamaCare. I think it is structurally ruining our healthcare system; driving up costs; and putting lower income people into insurance policies with extremely high deductibles and high out-of-pocket expenses.

That aside, at least 12 million Americans have gotten their health insurance through the exchanges. Of which, nearly 85% are getting subsidies; with the average subsidy being 73% of their cost of insurance. By extension, these people have entered in a "good faith contract" with our Federal government.

While I am not a lawyer, I have taken enough business law courses to understand that a "good faith contract" could be a problem for Donald Trump and the Republicans who would necessarily repeal ObamaCare. I think, theoretically, the collective of those receiving subsidies, and through no fault of their own, lose those subsidies, could sue in federal court (or even the Supreme Court) to maintain them on the basis of "good faith".

Additionally, I think the repeal of ObamaCare will result in a public relations nightmare for Trump and the Republicans. You know very well that the liberal media will work overtime to find someone who is harmed or has even died as a result of completely losing their insurance because of the lack of a subsidy. Once again, the Republicans will be broadly painted as being heartless.

I think a better tactic would be to grandfather, in place, all those now receiving subsidies. Drop the individual and employer mandates, and retain the requirements that insurance companies can't deny a person insurance on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

If the Republicans do their jobs and create a new healthcare law that is better than ObamaCare, those still in ObamaCare should naturally move to the new system. Just my opinion.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

First, their were the attempted recounts in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, that were intended to swing electoral votes to Hillary Clinton and give her the win. That fell flat when we learned that Wisconsin yielded Trump another162 votes. In fact, a recount in Detroit that heavily favored Clinton came up with more votes than registered voters. Once again proving that voter fraud does exist.

Then, there was Plan B: Get the Republican electors to vote their conscience and switch their votes because Trump only won because of the Russians. Well, that didn't go too well either. Ultimately more Democratic electors took votes away from Hillary than Republicans did from Trump. Hillary suffered 5 defections to Trump's 2.

So, what next?

Already, Democrats are plotting to redo the election; citing that the Russians tampered with the election process. A website "change.org" already has more than 115,000 signatures of the 150,000 needed to petition the White House and the Supreme Court to rerun the election. However, a well recognized election law professor at University of California-Irvine by the name of Chris Hansen says that is highly improbable, stating that "I have never seen anyone try to redo an election based upon the release of information which influenced voters” and “It is very rare for courts to declare a revote, and these do not look like the circumstances where courts would declare one.”

There's more. Senate Democrats Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Chris Coons, Ben Cardin, and Jeff Merkley have put forth a bill to force Donald Trump to sell all of his holdings, worldwide, and place the proceeds in a blind trust. A feat that would be nearly impossible since you would need to find multi-billion dollar investors who would want all of Trump's properties. Of course, the bill is not going to go anywhere anyway, since the Republicans control the Senate. More importantly, what this shows is that the Democrats are laying the ground for impeachment, if Trump even takes one penny from a foreign government's representative who may stay in a Trump hotel or play on one of his golf courses. If the Democrats are successful at impeaching Trump, the Republicans are going to regret never having brought impeachment proceedings against Obama for circumventing the Constitution by signing treaties without two-thirds Senate approval.

This is literally becoming a type of mental disorder. A "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that is being demonstrated by all too many Democrats. They are in complete denial as to why they have lost so much power in the last six years, and why Hillary was such a failed candidate. Please, you people need therapy!

It was just two months ago that Barack Obama took a victory lap by declaring a record high school graduation rate of 83% for the 2014-2015 school year. This was the fifth straight year of record graduation rate increases. All since he took office.

In making the announcement, Obama said this:

"When I took office almost eight years ago, we knew that our education
system was falling short. I said, by 2020 I want us to be No.
1 across the board, so we got to work making real changes to improve
the chances for all of our young people ... And the good news is that
we've made real progress."

Obama never explained what "real changes" were made to have increased graduation rates; starting with the 2009-2010 school year. And, how, so quickly, the impact was seen in just his first year-and-a-quarter in office. But, perhaps a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Chicago Public School system (CPS) explains the "why" of such a rapid increase in graduation rates. Understand that this is despite the fact that the President's own Education Department, through a testing program called "National Assessment of Educational Progress (also known as the Nation's Report Card)," found that "most" high school seniors weren't prepared for college or -- more importantly -- even a career! Implying that "most" seniors should not have graduated.

Now, back to that OIG report. According to OIG investigations, CPS personnel "systematically" used transfer codes to falsely claim that dropouts were transferring to non-CPS schools or being home schooled in the years 2009 to 2014. It also said that this practice was done "...so as to avoid any negative impact on schools’ attendance metrics or graduation rates caused by reporting dropouts."

Now, I don't know if the Chicago "deceit" is an isolated situation; or is widespread; or something in between. But, it is certainly coincidental that the false reporting began in 2009, and the supposed record graduating rates started at the same time Obama took office. Also, from Obama's own Education Department this year, 19% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. You can conclude what you want from this statistic, but the implication is that our school systems are simply graduating uneducated people and overstating graduation rates.

President Obama's focus always seems to be on quantity and not quality. Hopefully, Trump's Education Department will do just the opposite.

Monday, December 19, 2016

It is highly possible that the campaign to have Republican electors switch their votes to Hillary may actually backfire. In fact, some Democrat electors may actually wind up voting for Trump as a result of "voting their own conscience". Some may actually feel that flooding electors with emails, phone calls, and threats, including death threats, an abhorrent tactic. Added to that you have TV ads by a bunch of Hollywood actors attempting to undermine the electoral process.

Imagine if the situation were reversed and it was the Democrats getting a torrent of calls, e-mails, and threats? If this campaign to pressure electors is successful, then strong arm tactics will become commonplace in every Presidential election going forward. I think some Democrat electors will see that possibility, and may end up voting for Trump in order to "spite" and thwart this switch-the-vote campaign.
If so, and Trump gets more than the expected 306 electoral votes, a lot of people will be laughing their behind's off. Hopefully, this current attempt to reverse the electoral process will end right here.

Friday, December 16, 2016

We are all aware that President-elect Donald Trump is a fan of Twitter; although he may not always use it in the most positive way. Many, however, don't know that Twitter is a very troubled company.

It lacks a cohesive business strategy. It has struggled with attracting new users. Key executives have given up and have left the company like a flock of birds being released back into the wild. A signal, that internally, there are real management problems. Now the company has clearly indicated that it wants a buyer; as if issuing a cry for help to a suicide hotline. Names like Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Apple, Disney, and SalesForce.com are all supposedly involved in bidding, but nothing concrete is known about the bidding activity; or if it even still exists.

Essentially, if someone doesn't fix the problems at Twitter, the company may simply implode and "The Donald" may have to find another way of communicating his minute-by-minute, day and night, ever-changing feelings. It leaves one to wonder if he isn't a Twitter sleep walker. And, the media? They would lose one of their primary sources of negative news about our soon-to-be-President. Oh, the humanity!

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Because real life testing of driver-less cars is already underway, it is obvious that they will be all over our roads in the not-too-distant future.

And, I'm alright with that. These autonomous vehicles will be fully aware of all the conditions around them; make adjustments to speed and steering; and will save lives by avoiding driver distractions and human-error collisions. It will be a godsend for people with disabilities who normally can't drive on their own; including people with vision problems. I am quite sure the technological development from testing will make these cars as error-free as possible.

However, there may be a possible chink in the dream of error-free, driver-less transportation. Obama's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) just put a ruling into place for a 90-day comment period before implementation. That would require all new vehicles, at some time in the future, to be capable of wireless communication with other vehicles in order to reduce accidents. Also known as V2V (Vehicle-2-Vehicle) communications, the language of those communications would necessarily have to be common and unsecured for the system to work....and that's a big problem.

A hacker with knowledge of the wireless communication protocols being used, could easily take control of any vehicle that is fully automated; and without secured communication, it would be as easy as saying "mo-tee-ga" (the Russian word for "hack"). It could possibly even involve multiple vehicles. The object could be malicious, to cause accidents or death; much like the arsonist who gets off on starting fires, or it could be criminal, wanting to kidnap, rob, or even assassinate. The FBI warned us about this in March of this year. Their name for this kind of hacking is known as "vehicular cybersabotage". It has already been demonstrated by two researchers who remotely took control of a Jeep Cherokee and crashed it.

We should also be worried about after-market devices such as "Hum" from Verizon, which use cellphone technology that communicates directly with you car's onboard computer system.

More importantly, Barack Obama is dumping this on us with roughly 50 days left of his term out of the 90 day comment period; and Donald Trump's new administration may not have enough time to review the comments before the NHTSA puts the ruling into effect. Call me cynical, but I suspect this was intentionally done in order to deprive Trump of the time needed to review the ruling. There is no reason why this couldn't have waited a few months before entering the comment period. Also, expect other rules from the Obama administration to be "dumped" in the next week or so, for the same reason.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

One of the most frequent reasons the Democrats used to justify ObamaCare was that, among all the other wealthiest nations, we were last when it came to life expectancy. Of course, the logic is simple. Insure more people, and by doing so, give them greater access to healthcare; and as a result, people will live longer.

Unfortunately, that's not happening. In the latest report from the CDC, in 2015, the average American's life span declined for the first time in decades. This, despite the fact that, in that year (the second year into ObamaCare), the number of insured fell to a decades low 11.9% versus 18% at the end of 2013.

The CDC report shows that 9 of the top ten reasons for death all showed increases, with cancer being the only bright spot (if you can actually call cancer a bright spot) in the whole report:

"The rate increased 0.9% for heart disease, 2.7% for chronic lower
respiratory diseases, 6.7% for unintentional injuries, 3.0% for stroke,
15.7% for Alzheimer’s disease, 1.9% for diabetes, 1.5% for kidney
disease, and 2.3% for suicide. The rate decreased by 1.7% for cancer.
The rate for influenza and pneumonia did not change significantly."

Most all of the diseases that showed increases are somewhat treatable and should have seen better outcomes with the expansion of heath care access under ObamaCare. So, what gives?

Well, one might think that it is due to the fact that we are living longer and our population is aging and more susceptible to disease. But, the report also showed that the death rates for men and women age 65 and older, remained the same. Instead, it was supposedly, the younger people whose lives were being shortened. Another reason that researchers blamed the increase on was obesity and the rise of diabetes. However, that were negated by the fact that the infant mortality rate also went up; and obesity and diabetes are not infant diseases.

In my opinion, this suggests that the quality of care is in decline since ObamaCare went into effect. In discussions with my own doctors, I hear complaints that ObamaCare has burdened them with hours of paperwork and reporting; resulting in less time spent with each patient. In fact, in a recent study, the average physician spends 785 hours a year reporting quality measures to the federal government. That is almost 100 days of work based on an 8 hour workday.

The bottom line is that we may be seeing another reason why ObamaCare isn't working as promised and needs to be replaced.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

There has never been an official CIA or presidential declaration that the Russians were behind the hacking of the DNC and Hillary's Campaign email servers. Instead, we get a story from the Washington Post that a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed by the CIA and that the hacking was in fact done by the "Russians" at the behest of Vlad Putin to give Trump his win.

So, if the CIA is already sure that the Russians did it, why did Obama publicly order an investigation into the hacking on the very same day that the "Post" reported that fact. At the same time, he announces that he wants to have the results of that investigation on his desk before he leaves office. Also, why back in late November, did the White House insist that the hacking didn't sway the election? These facts alone, call into question the whole Russian-hacking story. Are we dealing with more fake news? It certainly makes the President look as if he was the last in his administration to know. Last I heard, the CIA still reports to Obama and he would have been briefed well before a "handful" of senators. Is it also possible, that it is a "false flag" operation, as claimed by Ambassador John Bolton, and that Obama could be behind the hacking and not the Russians?

One thing is certain. The DNC and the Hillary campaign emails were hacked because of the lack of strict security on the servers. Can't blame the Russians for that!

Monday, December 12, 2016

Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign email servers were hacked into by the Russians to help Trump win the election. And, that Vladimir Putin had personally directed the hack. This from an anonymous source that said a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed on this in a closed door session by the CIA. But, the CIA also stressed that not all national security agencies agree on this.

So, once again, we're being fed a story from an anonymous source that can't be verified. We don't even know what Senators were briefed. In the era of "fake news"stories, this may just be another one. Before this latest story, the Washington Post did a hit-job on the Trump
win on Thanksgiving by declaring that the Russians created "fake news"
on hundreds of Internet sites in order to give Trump the win. One has to wonder if the "Post" has an agenda here, and why they are the sole provocateur on these Russian/Trump stories.

My biggest problem is believing the whole concept of Putin wanting Trump to win. It doesn't pass the smell test. I cannot imagine Putin preferring Trump because of all the ways in which Trump could hurt the Russian state.

First of all, Trump is a climate denier who believes that we should back off from restricting the usage of fossil fuels; especially oil. For Russia, this is a problem since their economy is so dependent on oil. Any increased production under a Trump presidency will lower the price and economically depress the Russian economy.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has promised to rebuild our military. Does anyone really think Putin wants the U.S.military to get stronger and more advanced? On top of that, Donald Trump is more likely to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. Something that Putin does not want to happen. Further, Trump has never once stated that he wouldn't put boots on the ground, and Hillary clearly stated that wouldn't happen in her administration. Also, Trump may ignore the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty signed by Obama without Senate approval as mandated by law. Thus we could be on track to rebuild our nuclear weapons power.

Lastly, Trump's temperament is a great unknown with respect to how he would deal with any conflicts that occur between Russia and the U.S. This could force Putin to give pause when attempting to take over another country or area such as Crimea. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton have long held the belief that Trump was the last person they wanted with his finger on the nuclear button.

What I'm more concerned about, is that this election could be totally discredited and Trump's win nullified. What then? Could Hillary sue in federal court and take the win away from Trump on the basis that he won unfairly? Would the whole election process have to be rerun? If so, would Obama remain in office while that process was completed. That is certainly a possibility since he has ordered a completed intelligence review on his desk before he leaves office. And, if the election is rerun, for sure, the voter turnout for the Democrats would be great. This is certainly a mess that our founding fathers never anticipated as they drafted the Constitution.

Friday, December 9, 2016

While I don't have any data to prove it, my perception is that President Obama was the most public President in my lifetime. It seems as if not a day went by when he wasn't in front of the cameras giving a statement; signing an executive order; giving a news conference; meeting with some world leader; handing out an award; or giving a speech over some liberal agenda item that was near and dear to his heart. Honestly, he truly enjoyed the attention and the limelight. You could see it in his face and in his mannerisms; especially in front of an assemblage of adoring supporters. Sure, there were times when he was somber; as during a statement following a mass shooting. But, for the most part, being before the cameras and the press was always something he seemed to enjoy.

If Hillary had won, and the Senate, and maybe the House went Democrat, the former President nay have little to say about what was going on in Congress or the Presidency. His legacy would protected under a figurative third term. Basically, the on-camera limelight would be dimmed; if not gone. For someone who thrives on a very public lifestyle, that could be depressing.

But now with Trump's victory and both Houses of Congress remaining Republican his public persona may have a revival. Now he has a major political challenge to confront and respond to. He can stay firmly ensconced in the limelight. I can just see it. Every media agency will fight over interviews to get his opinion on what Trump or his right-wing Congress is up to. In essence, he will be in seventh heaven. It will be like a reprise of Sally Fields Oscar acceptance speech when she said "you like me...you really like me!"

Don't believe what Obama said a few days ago when he stated that he won't be a constant critic of his successor. Instead, take this statement as fact:

"As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are
issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative
proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals,
and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those
ideals, I'll examine it when it comes."

Essentially, with those words, I am certain he will find himself with a constant need to "defend" "our values and ideals". The "our" in that statement isn't the American people. The "our" is him. I also think that the fact that he will remain in Washington D.C. after he leaves office is more proof that he wants to maintain an on-camera presence. It's an obsession with him. Just mark my words!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

From the title of this blog, one might think what is being said is that "conservatives" have a "better understanding of science" (and math) and are therefore more likely to be "climate skeptics". But no. According to research by Dan M. Kahan and Jonathan C. Corbin, conservatives who are open-minded and have a better understanding of math and science, actually results in a "perverse" belief in climate change denial.

This is almost laughable.

Just think about it. The inverse of what these two researchers are actually saying is that climate alarmists are closed-minded with little understanding of math and science. Also, it appears that a belief is only "perverse" if it goes against the beliefs of those closed-minded, math and science illiterates. And, by the way. Who appointed these two researchers as the arbiters of what is "perverse"?

More importantly, the study dispels the claim by Democrats and climate alarmists that conservatives and Republicans are those who don't understand science. Back in January, Hollywood climate alarmist, Leonardo DiCaprio publicly said this: “Anyone that doesn’t believe that climate change is happening doesn’t believe in science.” And, many others have said the same thing. Bernie Sanders said this about Republicans in a Senate committee tirade in early November of this year: "We have an entire political party who is rejecting basic science!"

So, the bottom line is, that the Republicans are better educated in math and science; are too open-minded; and have a perverse belief in climate change denial. While, on the other hand, people like DiCaprio and Bernie Sanders are closed minded science and math ignoramuses who have an excellent, non-perverted grasp of climate change. Maybe, Kahan and Corbin should rethink their research findings.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Recently, President-elect, Donald Trump, took a phone call from the President of Taiwan, and the Democrats and liberal media (and China) went berserk over it. Even going so far as to call Trump stupid for violating a long held official non-diplomatic status. A status which is, in itself, a charade; we know it, and so does China, which claims that Taiwan is their property and subject to their government's regulation. However, in 1979, the then-President Jimmy Carter signed the Taiwan Relations Act into law, in order to establish an unofficial diplomatic status with them and conduct relations through a "front" organization called the American Institute of Taiwan; located in Washington, D.C.

Therefore, we do not have an official relation with Taiwan, but we sure seem to do a lot of business with that country. "Officially", Taiwan is our 9th largest trading partner. We sell them about $26 billion in goods, and,they, in turn, send us about $41 billion in Taiwan-made products. Additionally, many of our major multinational companies have operations there. Companies such as IBM, 3M, and Microsoft. On top of everything else, the United States has sold Taiwan billions of dollars worth of military equipment under every President since 1979, in order to help them defend themselves against China. You don't think that hasn't pissed China off more than a few minutes of conversation between Donald Trump and Taiwan's President?

So, just maybe, Donald Trump will finally expose the folly of not dealing with Taiwan directly. I hope so, because this nonsense of not talking to them is really, really silly. By the way. I wish the Washington Post would take a single stand on this (note the references below). Even going so far as to say it was "brilliant"! Wow! That's saying a lot from a noted liberal media outlet.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

One thousand jobs saved by a man who has yet to take the oath of office has Democrats reeling in agony. Most notably, Larry Summers, predicted "Trump’s Carrier deal could permanently damage American capitalism". This former Clinton appointee and Obama economics advisor, also just following Trump's win, warned that a "badly designed" infrastructure plan "will only hurt the working class". So, there you have it, Trump's focus on jobs is bad for capitalism and bad for America's working class.

And, it doesn't stop there. Dozens of left-leaning media types are pumping out negative commentaries as noted by these samplings of headlines that appeared in one "positive" from Investor's Business Daily (IBD):

"Trump's Carrier Victory Is the Economy's Loss"
"Trump's Carrier deal is right out of Putin's playbook"
"Is Trump's Deal With Carrier A Form Of Crony Capitalism?"
"Trump Cheered for Carrier Deal Even as Other Jobs Are Trimmed"
"Bernie Sanders: Donald Trump 'Has Endangered' U.S. Jobs With Carrier Deal"

Even the White House chimed in by claiming that this is just a fraction of the manufacturing jobs created by Obama, which, by the way, is a complete lie, since under Obama, more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs just went poof! And, in the latest employment report, another 4,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. How does that square with Trump saving 1000 Carrier jobs? Or, the promise by Obama that he would create 1 million manufacturing jobs in his second term.

My take on all the criticism of Trump and the Carrier Deal by Democrats is somewhat different. I think that all the negative commentary only shows that Democrats really don't care about the American worker. Instead it's all about sparring over politics. Trump won on a pro-worker agenda and the Carrier deal was just a part of it. This is why Trump won so many blue collar votes. The Democrats just don't get that.

Monday, December 5, 2016

During a recent press conference with Angela Merkel, President Obama blamed the rise of Trump on the Internet and "communications" (Newspapers? Radio? TV?); claiming that these technologies need to be controlled because they are "disruptive". Disruptive to who? Him? The Democrats? Or, to those that call themselves globalists, who believe in open borders; a unified world government; and a single global currency?

The fact is, that Obama, once again, wants to control conservative talk.

Of course, he is talking about Fox News. In 2010, he said they had a "destructive" viewpoint. In May of 2015, at a conference at Georgetown University, when talking about the fact that the media must be controlled, he said this: "I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad..." Just recently, he went after them again when he claimed that Hillary Clinton's loss was due to the fact that Fox News is in "every bar and restaurant". Really?. Most bars I've gone to have sports on, and most restaurants play music, not Fox News. He really needs to get out more often and see what the real world is like!

I suppose that this blog as well, needs to be controlled. And, what about talk radio? Also I'm certain that he thinks Brietbart, Mediaite, and a whole host of other conservative websites must be sternly dealt with. In fact, any form of communications that doesn't show Barack Obama in a "good light" should be eradicated; or at least converted to a liberal format. Since he has been in office, he has used his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission to shut down conservative speech of any kind.

But now he's even gotten Facebook and Google involved in limiting free speech. Both run by Obama and Democratic supporters, they are now in the process of cleansing the internet of supposed false/fake news. The question here is, who elected them the arbitrators of what constitutes fake news. And, where is the line drawn between opinion pieces and so-called fake news. Facebook and Google never had a problem allowing searches and stories when Harry Reid falsely claimed that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years; for which Politifact give dirty Harry a full "pants on fire" rating.

But the media is full of false stories. Do a Google search on NBC and you will find dozens of occurrences by that supposedly major new agency (and Obama Supporter) selectively editing stories to favor a "Democratic" viewpoint. Then, we have the darling of the liberal left, Katie Couric, who selectively edited a documentary on gun control in order to make gun ownership advocates look like uninformed idiots.

The bottom line is that Obama doesn't really want to control the internet and communications on a fair basis. He only wants to control those aspects that he doesn't like. Of course, forget about that little thing called the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. Even if it is false. Look at how many incorrect statements our politicians make. For example, Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Finally, the rise of Donald Trump could best be explained as the country's rejection of excessive "political correctness" which is constantly encouraged by Democrats and by Barack Obama himself. The President still can't say the words "Islamic Terrorists". No major media outlet has even reported on Obama calling for the "control" of the Internet and Communications. That is a type of abuse, in itself?

Friday, December 2, 2016

If you listen to this speech on the Senate floor by Elizabeth Warren (the first few minutes of the following video), you would think the Democrats are somehow in the majority:

Warren seems unable to come to grips with the fact that most of the country does not support her or her party. She seems to think that the fact Hillary Clinton has a 2 million popular vote lead, is somehow, proof that she is in the majority. However, if you separate out the 2.8 million lead that she has in California, Trump would win the popular vote. Trump won the popular vote in three-fifths of the states. California does not represent the nation as a whole. In the last 8 years, the Democratic party has suffered massive losses both in Washington and across the country (as noted in my two referenced blog entries below).

Elizabeth Warren has proven why America is tired of the Democrat's bulls**t; constantly certain that they know what is best for the country.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Not able to comprehend that the old guard of the Democratic party has put it in the worst shape in 80 years, the House Democrats have, once again, elected Nancy Pelosi as their Minority Leader. Or, to use a sports analogy, they rehired a coach with a zero win record for the last eight years.

It wasn't only Washington that experienced the Republican tsunami over the last eight years, it was a sweeping rejection of the Democratic Party across the entire nation. Twenty-nine percent of the Democrats in the House of Representatives come from just two states: California and New York. Add Massachusetts and they are up to 34%; and two-thirds of the Dems in the House come from just 13 states that line our two coasts as noted by the blue states on the following map:

All the white states represent the farmers, blue collar, and manufacturing workers that the Democrats claim they support. Yet, those people in the so-called fly-over states understand that the Democratic party has forgotten them. That is why the Democrats have literally seen the majority they had in the state legislatures flip since Obama took office and while Pelosi was in charge of the House Democrats:

The simple fact is that the policies of the Democrats of taxing and regulation aren't putting food on people's tables or making "their" lives better. Former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said it best: "All politics is local". You just can't legislate to satisfy the liberal base in New York and California while ignoring the heartland, where life is much different, and expect to continue to win. But, the reelection of Pelosi -- a California Democrat -- simply sends the message that the Democrats will continue with more of the same. To -- I am sure -- the glee of the Republican Party.